Heavy penalties are on the table for banks caught lying and taking fees for no service


Dimity Kingsford Smith, UNSW and Alex Steel, UNSW

Another week of hearings of the Financial Services Royal Commission has seen financial services company AMP admitting it mislead the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) on 20 occasions. The commission also saw evidence of both AMP and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia paying themselves client money when there was no adviser allocated to provide services, or the client had passed away.

It seems ASIC and the Director of Public Prosecutions will have no lack of evidence to pursue civil penalties and criminal cases. The bigger issue is what charges to go with.

In deciding what to pursue, ASIC and the DPP will need to weigh up the costs, the charges individuals are willing to plead guilty to, and the outcomes that will best serve the public interest.

Convicting individuals clearly “sends a message”, but these employees are easily replaced with others just as willing to commit the offences, unless the organisation’s culture is changed.

ASIC has confirmed it has a broad-ranging investigation into AMP already underway, and the Treasurer has suggested the behaviour might attract jail time.

Whether or not bankers get jail time will depend on the actual offences charged and a range of sentencing factors. However, the courts are increasingly emphasising the importance of substantial sentences for white collar crime.

Offences with similar maximum penalties in the UK led to a UBS banker who manipulated the London Interbank Offered Rate being sentenced to 14 years jail in 2015. Another joined him in 2016 for two years and nine months and three others were also convicted.

What AMP and CBA did

AMP and CBA have admitted they failed to provide information and report breaches to ASIC as required by the Corporations Act. Misleading Australian government agencies is also a criminal offence under the Act and the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

As well as dealing truthfully with ASIC, all entities licensed to offer financial services must act “efficiently, honestly and fairly” and take reasonable steps to ensure their employees do likewise.

It is not hard to see how taking clients’ money without providing a service is not efficient, honest or fair.

Civil penalties

Civil sanctions could apply to conduct at AMP and CBA which could ultimately involve disqualification for up to 20 years from working as a corporate officer and/or a fine of up to A$200,000.

Officers of a corporation are very senior employees and usually immediately below board level. They have a duty to be careful and diligent and act in the best interests of the company under the Corporations Act. There is a range of lesser charges from general dishonesty to false documentation offences.

Officers of a corporation have duties which require them to be careful and diligent. This is because the officers may have failed to follow up or failed to prevent conduct) after finding out about what was going on.

If ASIC and the DPP can go further and prove that AMP and CBA officers have intentionally caused their company to break the law, it is virtually impossible that conduct could be in the interests of the corporation. AMP and CBA officers may have also breached criminal offences in the Corporations Act if the wrongdoing was reckless or intentionally dishonest.

Criminal charges

Turning to more general offences, here criminal penalties range from 12 months in jail for misleading ASIC, to significant penalties for conspiracy to defraud.

Any bank employee who was involved in the creation of misleading documentation might well be exposed to fraud charges. Under Commonwealth and state law, fraud can involve reckless deception of another (either ASIC or the clients) with an intention to gain a financial advantage for another (AMP or CBA) Those offences have maximum penalties of 10 years jail. There is a range of lesser charges from general dishonesty to false documentation offences.
Those who assisted might well also be liable through accessorial liability.

Prosecutors could also turn to the conspiracy to defraud offence. The Commonwealth version of the offence involves an agreement to dishonestly influence a public official’s decisions. An agreement to provide false documents to ASIC would seem easily to fit this offence. Again, this has a maximum penalty of 10 years.

Similarly, common law conspiracy to defraud charges could be available for dishonestly misleading customers in a way that caused them financial loss. There are no prescribed maximum penalties for this version of the offence.

Multiple offences could mean sentences served concurrently, or partly cumulatively.

The ConversationAlthough the wrongdoing may seem clear to the public, it is likely that complex matters of proof will emerge and ASIC will need to make a range of decisions about the best approach to ensuring cultural change occurs. While convictions might be deserved, the public interest is best served by ensuring that prosecutions are part of wider regulatory action leading to better banking practices.

Dimity Kingsford Smith, Professor and Director, Centre for Law Markets and Regulation, UNSW Law, UNSW and Alex Steel, Professor, UNSW Scientia Education Fellow, UNSW

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisements

Yes, Syria’s Assad regime is brutal. But the retaliatory air strikes are illegal and partisan



File 20180418 163986 bvtowi.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Civil war has raged in Syria for seven years.
AAP/ Youssef Badawi

Amy Maguire, University of Newcastle and Jason von Meding, University of Newcastle

The mainstream media have broadly accepted the justifications from the United States, France and Britain of humanitarian motivation for the retaliatory strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime.

Journalist Adam Johnson analysed US mainstream coverage and reported that:

major publications take the bulk of the premises for war for granted — namely the US’s legal and moral right to wage it — and simply parse over the details.

The air strike proceeded without publication of proof that Syria was responsible for the alleged atrocity in Douma. Reports are emerging that cast doubt on the official narrative.

Regardless, swift action was demanded and taken. Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are only now gaining access “to establish facts around the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma”.

Strikes illegal under international law

Alongside claims for justification from the Trump administration, similar rhetoric featured in statements from French and British leaders. French President Emmanuel Macron claimed there was no doubt Syria was responsible for a chemical attack on civilians, in gross violation of international law. He said:

We cannot tolerate the trivialisation of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger for the Syrian people and our collective security.

British Prime Minister Theresa May agreed, saying “we cannot allow the erosion of the international norm that prevents the use of these weapons”. May identified the lack of consensus in the UN Security Council as a driving factor in the joint military action.

Even this week the Russians vetoed a resolution at the UN Security Council which would have established an independent investigation into the Douma attack. So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.

The United Nations Charter contains a prohibition on the threat or use of force against another state. Exceptions to this rule of international law are tightly constrained:

  • Under Article 51 of the Charter, states retain a right to individual and collective self-defence in the case of an armed attack.

  • Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council may authorise military force to restore international peace and security, if non-forceful measures have failed.

The British government has published a brief asserting the legality of the air strike on Syria as an exercise of “humanitarian intervention” (effectively invoking the doctrine of the “Responsibility to Protect” or R2P, without explicitly mentioning it).

The argument is that the UK and its allies were entitled to use force against Syria because:

  • there was convincing evidence of large-scale and extreme humanitarian distress;
  • there was no practicable alternative to using force in order to save lives; and
  • the use of force in response was proportionate and time-limited to relieve humanitarian suffering.

Yet the R2P doctrine does not establish a new legal basis for the use of force. It allows for the use of force as “humanitarian intervention” only within the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter, in the case of grave international crimes.

The Labour opposition in the UK has released its own legal opinion, sharply contradicting the government and asserting that the strikes were illegal.

Illegal but legitimate?

The allies responsible for this week’s air strike have not claimed explicit authorisation under the Charter. Instead, their aim has been to establish the legitimacy of the strike. This approach was endorsed by the European Union and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

According to President Trump:

The nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshalled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Assad regime cannot be absolved of its brutality. Indeed, it is a fundamental objective of the post-second world war international legal order to save humanity from the “scourge of war” and promote human rights.

And there can be little doubt that the international legal system is far from perfect, having failed to protect populations around the world from gross violations of humanitarian and human rights law.

In Syria, hundreds of thousands have been killed over seven years of civil war, and millions are now refugees or internally displaced. The complexity of the conflict has seen monitors cease to estimate a death toll.

However, efforts to establish an alternative foundation for military action, beyond what is currently legal, pose risks that must be grappled with.

If states are permitted to determine when force is warranted, outside the existing legal framework, the legitimacy of that framework may be fatally undermined. How could any consistency of response be ensured? By what standard will states distinguish between benevolent and “rogue” regimes?

Leader of the UK opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, challenged Prime Minister May on these grounds:

Does the humanitarian crisis in Yemen entitle other countries to arrogate to themselves the right to bomb Saudi positions in Yemen, given their use of cluster bombs and white phosphorous?

Jeremy Corbyn | Response to Prime Minister’s Syria Statement.

It is relevant in this context that Saudi Arabia is a highly valued client of the British arms industry. According to War Child UK, total sales to the kingdom have topped £6 billion since the conflict in Yemen began. The UK has refused to support a proposed UN inquiry into allegations of Saudi war crimes in Yemen.

Meanwhile, crimes against humanity and gross human rights violations are alleged against Myanmar, the Philippines and Israel, among other states, without attracting the kind of “humanitarian intervention” undertaken in Syria.

Humanitarian intervention or regime change

Jeremy Corbyn has made the case for diplomacy as the only reasonable way forward. Syria should not be a war theatre in which the agendas of external actors take precedence, he argues.

The US has long envisaged regime change in Syria, and stepped up sponsorship of opposition groups since 2009.




Read more:
How the aid community responds in Syria will dictate its role in future crises


Robert Kennedy Jr. traced the history of US intervention in Syria from the first CIA involvement in 1949. He argues that this is another oil war, and says of broader interventionism in the Middle East:

The only winners have been the military contractors and oil companies that have pocketed historic profits, the intelligence agencies that have grown exponentially in power and influence to the detriment of our freedoms and the jihadists who invariably used our interventions as their most effective recruiting tool.

Central to US strategic thinking is the relationship between Syria and Iran. US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, seemed to say that a condition for US withdrawal is that Iran cease to function as an ally of Syria.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The ConversationWith the US gaze so firmly fixed on Iran and Russia, the rationale for “humanitarian intervention” can and should be more firmly critiqued.

Amy Maguire, Senior Lecturer in International Law and Human Rights, University of Newcastle and Jason von Meding, Senior Lecturer in Disaster Risk Reduction, University of Newcastle

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Legal highs: arguments for and against legalising cannabis in Australia



File 20180417 32339 16n0gjo.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Many of the harms associated with cannabis use are to do with its illegality.
from http://www.shutterstock.com

Nicole Lee, Curtin University and Jarryd Bartle, RMIT University

Greens leader Richard Di Natale wants Australia to legalise cannabis for personal use, regulated by a federal agency. This proposal is for legalisation of recreational use for relaxation and pleasure, not to treat a medical condition (which is already legal in Australia for some conditions).

According to the proposal, the government agency would licence, monitor and regulate production and sale, and regularly review the regulations. The agency would be the sole wholesaler, buying from producers and selling to retailers it licences.

The proposed policy includes some safeguards that reflect lessons we’ve learned from alcohol and tobacco. These include a ban on advertising, age restrictions, requiring plain packaging, and strict licensing controls. Under the proposal, tax revenues would be used to improve funding to the prevention and treatment sector, which is underfunded compared to law enforcement.




Read more:
Greens want cannabis to be made legal


Cannabis legislation around the world

In Australia, cannabis possession and use is currently illegal. But in several states and territories (South Australia, ACT and Northern Territory) a small amount for personal use is decriminalised. That means it’s illegal, but not a criminal offence. In all others it’s subject to discretionary or mandatory diversion usually by police (referred to as “depenalisation”).

Several jurisdictions around the world have now legalised cannabis, including Uruguay, Catalonia and nine states in the United States. Canada is well underway to legalising cannabis, with legislation expected some time this year, and the New Zealand prime minister has flagged a referendum on the issue.

In a recent opinion poll, around 30% of Australians thought cannabis should be legal. Teenagers 14-17 years old were least likely to support legalistaion (21% of that age group) and 18-24 year olds were most likely to support it (36% of that age group).




Read more:
Australia’s recreational drug policies aren’t working, so what are the options for reform?


In the latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey, around a quarter of respondents supported cannabis legalisation and around 15% approved of regular use by adults for non-medical purposes.

What are the concerns about legalisation?

Opponents of legalisation are concerned it will increase use, increase crime, increase risk of car accidents, and reduce public health – including mental health. Many are concerned cannabis is a “gateway” drug.

The “gateway drug” hypothesis was discounted decades ago. Although cannabis usually comes before other illegal drug use, the majority of people who use cannabis do not go on to use other drugs. In addition, alcohol and tobacco usually precede cannabis use, which if the theory were correct would make those drugs the “gateway”.




Read more:
Could a regulated cannabis market help curb Australia’s drinking problem?


There is also no evidence legalisation increases use. But, studies have shown a number of health risks, including:

  • around 10% of adults and one in six teens who use regularly will become dependent

  • regular cannabis use doubles the risk of psychotic symptoms and schizophrenia

  • teen cannabis use is associated with poorer school outcomes but causation has not been established

  • driving under the influence of cannabis doubles the risk of a car crash

  • smoking while pregnant affects a baby’s birth weight.

What are the arguments for legalisation?

Reducing harms

Australia’s official drug strategy is based on a platform of harm minimisation, including supply reduction, demand reduction (prevention and treatment) and harm reduction. Arguably, policies should therefore have a net reduction in harm.

But some of the major harms from using illicit drugs are precisely because they are illegal. A significant harm is having a criminal record for possessing drugs that are for personal use. This can negatively impact a person’s future, including careers and travel. Decriminalisation of cannabis would also reduce these harms without requiring full legalisation.

Reducing crime and social costs

A large proportion of the work of the justice system (police, courts and prisons) is spent on drug-related offences. Yet, as Mick Palmer, former AFP Commissioner, notes “drug law enforcement has had little impact on the Australian drug market”.

Decriminalisation may reduce the burden on the justice system, but probably not as much as full legalisation because police and court resources would still be used for cautioning, issuing fines, or diversion to education or treatment. Decriminalisation and legalistaion both potentially reduce the involvement of the justice system and also of the black market growing and selling of cannabis.




Read more:
Assessing the costs and benefits of legalising cannabis


Raising tax revenue

Economic analysis of the impact of cannabis legalisation calculate the net social benefit of legalisation at A$727.5 million per year. This is significantly higher than the status quo at around A$295 million (for example from fines generating revenue, as well as perceived benefits of criminalisation deterring use). The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates tax revenue from cannabis legalisation at around A$259 million.

Civil liberties

Many see cannabis prohibition as an infringement on civil rights, citing the limited harms associated with cannabis use. This includes the relatively low rate of dependence and very low likelihood of overdosing on cannabis, as well as the low risk of harms to people using or others.

Many activities that are legal are potentially harmful: driving a car, drinking alcohol, bungee jumping. Rather than making them illegal, there are guidelines, laws and education to make them safer that creates a balance between civil liberties and safety.

What has happened in places where cannabis is legal?

Legalisation of cannabis is relatively recent in most jurisdictions so the long-term benefits or problems of legalisation are not yet known.

But one study found little effect of legalisation on drug use or other outcomes, providing support for neither opponents nor advocates of legalisation. Other studies have shown no increase in use, even among teens.

The ConversationThe research to date suggests there is no significant increase (or decrease) in use or other outcomes where cannabis legalisation has occurred. It’s possible the harm may shift, for example from legal harms to other types of harms. We don’t have data to support or dispel that possibility.

Nicole Lee, Professor at the National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University and Jarryd Bartle, Sessional Lecturer in Criminal Law, RMIT University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The public has a vital role to play in preventing future cyber attacks



File 20180417 101464 vorjds.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Numerous cyber attacks in recent years have targeted common household devices, such as routers.
Shutterstock

Sandeep Gopalan, Deakin University

Up to 400 Australian organisations may have been snared in a massive hacking incident detailed today. The attack, allegedly engineered by the Russian government, targeted millions of government and private sector machines globally via devices such as routers, switches, and firewalls.

This follows a cyber attack orchestrated by Iranian hackers revealed last month, which targeted Australian universities.




Read more:
Explainer: how internet routers work and why you should keep them secure


A joint warning by the US and UK governments stated that the purpose of the most recent attack was to:

… support espionage, extract intellectual property, maintain persistent access to victim networks, and potentially lay a foundation for future offensive operations.

The Russians’ modus operandi was to target end-of-life devices and those without encryption or authentication, thereby compromising routers and network infrastructure. In doing so, they secured legitimate credentials from individuals and organisations with weak password protections in order to take control of the infrastructure.

Cyber attacks are key to modern conflict

This is not the first instance of Russian aggression.

The US city of Atlanta last month was crippled by a cyber attack and many of its systems are yet to recover – including the court system. In that case, attackers used the SamSam ransomware, which also uses network infrastructure to infiltrate IT systems, and demanded a ransom payment in Bitcoin.

Baltimore was hit by a cyber attack on March 28 that disrupted its emergency 911 calling system. Russian hackers are suspected to have taken down the French TV station TV5Monde in 2015. The US Department of State was hacked in 2015 – and Ukraine’s power grid and military infrastructure were also compromised in separate attacks in 2015 and 2017.

But Russia is not alone in committing these attacks.

In December 2017, North Korean hackers were blamed for the WannaCry attack that infected over 300,000 computers in 150 countries, affecting hospitals and banks. The UK’s National Health Service was particularly bruised and patients had to be turned away from surgical procedures and appointments.

Iran has conducted cyber attacks against numerous targets in the US, Israel, UAE, and other countries. In turn, Iran was subjected to a cyber attack on April 7 that saw computer screens display the US flag with the warning “don’t mess with our elections”.

Prosecuting hackers is ineffective

The US government has launched prosecutions against hackers – most recently against nine Iranians for the cyber attacks on universities. However, prosecutions are of limited efficacy when hackers are beyond the reach of US law enforcement and unlikely to be surrendered by their home countries.

As I have written previously, countries such as Australia and the US cannot watch passively as rogue states conduct cyber attacks against targets within our jurisdiction.




Read more:
Is counter-attack justified against a state-sponsored cyber attack? It’s a legal grey area


Strong countermeasures must be taken in self defence against the perpetrators wherever they are located. If necessary, self defence must be preemptive – any potential perpetrators must be crippled before they are able to launch strikes on organisations here.

Reactive measures are a weak deterrent, and our response should include a first strike cyber attack option where there is credible intelligence about imminent attacks. Notably, the UK has threatened to use conventional military strikes against cyber attacks. This may be an overreaction at this time.

Educating the public is essential

Numerous cyber attacks in recent years – including the current attack – have targeted common household devices, such as routers. As a result, the security of public infrastructure relies to some extent on the security practices of everyday Australians.

So, what role should the government play in ensuring Australians are securing their devices?

Unfortunately, cybersecurity isn’t as simple as administering an annual flu shot. It’s not feasible for the government to issue cybersecurity software to residents since security patches are likely to be out-of-date before the next attack.

But the government should play a role in educating the public about cyber attacks and securing public internet services.

The city of New York has provided a free app to all residents called NYC Secure that is aimed at educating people. It is also adding another layer of security to its free wifi services to protect users from downloading malicious software or accessing phishing websites. And the city of Jonesboro, Georgia is putting up a firewall to secure its services.




Read more:
Artificial intelligence cyber attacks are coming – but what does that mean?


Australian city administrations must adopt similar strategies alongside a sustained public education effort. A vigilant public is a necessary component in our collective security strategy against cyber attacks.

This cannot be achieved without significant investment. In addition to education campaigns, private organisations – banks, universities, online sellers, large employers – must be leveraged into ensuring their constituents do not enable attacks through end-of-life devices, unsupported software, poor password protection policies and lack of encryption.

Governments must also prioritise investment in their own IT and human resources infrastructure. Public sector IT talent has always lagged the private sector due to pay imbalances, and other structural reasons.

It is difficult for governments to attain parity of technical capabilities with Russian or North Korean hackers in the short term. The only solution is a strong partnership – in research, detection tools, and counter-response strategies – with the private sector.

The ConversationThe Atlanta attack illustrates the perils of inaction – an audit report shows the city was warned months in advance but did nothing. Australian cities must not make the same mistake.

Sandeep Gopalan, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic Innovation) & Professor of Law, Deakin University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Explainer: what’s new about the 2018 flu vaccines, and who should get one?


File 20180417 101509 1kd2t6r.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
The flu shot is free for at-risk groups, and available to others for around $10-$25.
Shutterstock

Kanta Subbarao, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity

As winter draws closer, many Australians are wondering whether this year’s influenza season will be as bad as the last, and whether they should get vaccinated.

For most of us, influenza (the flu) is a mild illness, causing fever, chills, a cough, sore throat and body aches, that lasts several days. But some people – especially the elderly, young children and those with chronic diseases – are at risk of serious and potentially deadly complications.

While not perfect, the seasonal influenza vaccine is the best way to protect against influenza viruses. It’s free for at-risk groups, and available to others for around A$10A$25 (plus a consultation fee if your GP doesn’t bulk bill). In some states people can also get influenza vaccines from pharmacies.

Different viruses

There are four influenza viruses that cause epidemics: two type A viruses, called A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 and two type B influenza viruses, called B/Yamagata and B/Victoria viruses. All four cause a similar illness called influenza.

In any season, one of the viruses may dominate, or two or even three viruses could circulate.




Read more:
Influenza: The search for a universal vaccine


Last year’s influenza seasons in Australia and the United States were caused by A/H3N2, while B/Yamagata viruses predominated in Asia, and a mix occurred in Europe.

Influenza A/H3N2 viruses cause more severe epidemics that affect the entire population, from the very young to the very old.

In contrast, influenza B and A/H1N1 viruses tend to cause disease in children and young adults, respectively, sparing the elderly.

Developing the vaccine

Although influenza activity around the world is monitored throughout the year, influenza viruses mutate continuously and we can’t predict which virus will dominate. For this reason, the influenza vaccine includes components that are updated to protect against all four influenza A and B viruses.

Vaccination is the best option to prevent influenza and is offered in the autumn, in anticipation of influenza season in the winter. Typically, the influenza season begins in June, peaks by September and can last until November.

For best protection, you need a flu vaccine each year. Roberty Booy, Head of the Clinical Research team at the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, explains why (via the Australian Academy of Science).

It takes about two weeks for the vaccine to induce immunity and the resulting protection lasts about six months.

The 2017 influenza season was severe in all states except WA. The epidemic began earlier than usual, there were more reported cases than in previous years, and there were a large number of outbreaks in residential care facilities in several jurisdictions.




Read more:
Here’s why the 2017 flu season was so bad


Who is most affected?

People of all ages can get influenza but some people are at greater risk of severe illness and complications that require hospitalisation. These groups include:

  • older adults who are over 65 years of age
  • children aged under five years and especially children under one
  • pregnant women
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons
  • people with severe asthma or underlying health conditions such as heart or lung disease, low immunity or diabetes.
Anyone can get a flu vaccine but some people have to pay for it.
Shutterstock

While the National Immunisation Program provides vaccines free of charge for the groups listed above, anyone who wants to reduce their risk of influenza can get vaccinated.

What’s new this year?

There are two notable changes.

One change is that several states (Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT) are now offering free vaccination for children under five years of age.




Read more:
Thinking about getting your child the flu vaccine? Here’s what you need to know


This is important because children are prone to severe illness and they spread the virus to their contacts, at home and in daycare. Previously, only WA offered children the influenza vaccine free of charge.

The second change is “enhanced” vaccines are available for adults over the age of 65. The standard influenza vaccine is not optimally effective in older adults.

Two products have been developed to improve the immunity offered by the vaccine: one is a high-dose vaccine four times the strength of the standard vaccine and the second is an “adjuvanted” vaccine, that contains an additive that boosts the immune response to the vaccine.




Read more:
Here’s what you need to know about the new flu vaccines for over-65s


These vaccines have been available in other countries for many years but are being introduced in Australia for the first time in 2018. Older adults will be offered one of the two enhanced vaccines for free.

What happens if you still get influenza?

Even if you’re vaccinated, you can still get influenza.

The effectiveness of the seasonal influenza vaccine varies and is usually around 40-50%. But last year’s vaccine was only around 33% effective overall, because it was not effective against the A/H3N2 virus though it was effective against the A/H1N1 and influenza B viruses.

While vaccines are given ahead of time to prevent influenza, antiviral drugs are available via GP prescription for people who get infected.

The antiviral drugs for influenza are most effective when taken within two days of illness and are only effective against influenza viruses. But they’re not effective against other respiratory viruses that cause colds and respiratory symptoms.

Influenza is a contagious virus that spreads through contact with respiratory secretions that are airborne (such as coughs and sneezes) or that contaminate surfaces (after wiping a runny nose, for instance). If you have influenza, stay home to avoid spreading the virus.

The ConversationUnfortunately, we can’t predict whether the 2018 influenza season will be mild or severe. Once we know which virus or viruses are circulating, we may be in a better position to predict how severe the season will be for older adults.

Kanta Subbarao, Professor, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Grattan on Friday: Government’s misjudgement on banking royal commission comes back to bite it



File 20180419 163991 1y4wm8w.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
In light of what is coming out the government should be ashamed of its past performance.
Flickr, CC BY-SA

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

If you are a politician, what do you do when your bad judgement – or worse – has been dramatically called out for all to see?

That’s the question which has faced the government as appalling behaviour by the Commonwealth Bank, AMP and Westpac has been revealed this week at the royal commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry.

Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce went the full-monty confession. “In the past I argued against a Royal Commission into banking. I was wrong. What I have heard … so far is beyond disturbing”, he tweeted.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Joyce is now a backbencher, and free with his opinions. It’s another story with current ministers. They continue trying to score political points over Labor, which had been agitating for a royal commission long before it was set up.

The ministers claim the government laid down terms of reference that took the inquiry beyond what Labor was proposing. But although Labor never released terms of reference, it flagged in April 2016 a broad inquiry into “misconduct in the banking and financial services industry”.

The real difference between the government and the opposition was the emphasis on superannuation. While Labor’s inquiry would have covered it, the government wrote in a specific term of reference, hoping evidence about industry funds might embarrass the unions and therefore the ALP. The commission has yet to reach those funds.

Revenue Minister Kelly O’Dwyer, pressed about her refusal to admit the government had erred in opposing a commission, told the ABC on Thursday, “Initially, the government said that it didn’t feel that there was enough need for a royal commission. And we re-evaluated our position and we introduced one”.

Well, that’s the short version. In fact, the government was forced to drop its resistance when Nationals rebels threatened to revolt. Take a bow, Queensland Nationals backbenchers Barry O’Sullivan, George Christensen and Llew O’Brien. You did everyone a service.

Indeed, the Nationals were on the case of the banks very early. Nationals senator John “Wacka” Williams for years pursued the rorts, through Senate committee investigations.

The government’s resistance to the royal commission was bad enough but remember its earlier record on consumer protections in the financial services area.

When the Coalition came to power it was determined to weaken measures Labor had introduced. Eventually, it was thwarted by the Senate crossbench, with the upper house disallowing its changes.

Just why the government was so keen to shield an industry where wrongdoing had been obvious is not entirely clear. It appears to have been a mix of free market ideology, a let-the-buyer-beware philosophy, and some close ministerial ties with the banking sector.

In light of what is coming out, the government should be ashamed of its past performance.

This week, the commission heard about AMP, which provides a wide range of financial products and advice, charging for services it didn’t deliver, and deliberately misleading the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), about its behaviour. By week’s end, AMP Chief Executive Craig Meller had quit.

It also heard how the Commonwealth Bank’s financial planning business charged customers it knew had died, including in one case for more than a decade. Linda Elkins, from CBA’s wealth management arm Colonial First State, agreed with the proposition put to her that the CBA would “be the gold medallist if ASIC was handing out medals for fee for no service.”

A nurse told of the financial disaster after she and her husband, aspiring to set up a B&B, received advice from a Westpac financial planner, including to sell the family home.

Seasoned journalist Janine Perrett, who now works for Sky, tweeted, “I thought nothing could shock me anymore, but in my forty years as a journo, most of it covering business, I have never seen anything as appalling as what we are witnessing at the banking RC. And I covered the 80’s crooks including Bond and Skase.”

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The commission’s interim report is due September 30 and its final report by February 1, not long before the expected time of the election. There is speculation over whether the reporting date will be extended. Bill Shorten says the inquiry should be given longer if needed; Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has indicated the government would do what Commissioner Kenneth Hayne wanted.

Those in the government who think the original timetable should be adequate note that, unlike for example the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, this inquiry is not undertaking deep dives into everything, but exposing the general problems.

From the opposition’s point of view, it would be desirable for the inquiry to run on. That would keep the banks a live debate, and leave it for Labor, if elected, to deal with the commission’s outcome. Shorten is already paving the way for a compensation scheme financed by the industry. Given the poisonous unpopularity of the banks, the Coalition could hardly run a scare about what a Shorten government might do.

Ideally, the government needs the issue squared away before the election.

The government insists it has already put in train a good deal to clean up the industry including a one-stop-shop for complaints, higher standards for financial advisers, beefing up ASIC, and a tougher penalty regime.

Treasurer Scott Morrison and O’Dwyer on Friday announced the detail of hefty new penalties for corporate and financial misconduct, including ASIC being able to ban people from the financial services sector.

One argument the government made against a royal commission was that it would just delay action. But of course if it had been held much earlier, by now we might have in place a full suite of reforms.

The ConversationMost immediately, the shocking stories from the commission are adding to the government’s problems in trying to sell its company tax cuts for big business to key crossbench senators and to the public.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Mood and personality disorders are often misconceived: here’s what you need to know


Kathryn Fletcher, Swinburne University of Technology and Kristi-Ann Villagonzalo, Swinburne University of Technology

With each new version of the widely-used manual of mental disorders, the number of mental health conditions increases. The latest version (DSM-5) lists around 300 disorders. To complicate things, many share common features, such as depression and anxiety.

The manual is a useful guide for doctors and researchers, but making a diagnosis is not a precise science. So if the “experts” are still debating what’s what when it comes to categorising disorders, it’s not surprising misconceptions abound in the community about certain mental health conditions.

We learn about mental health conditions in a number of ways. Either we know someone who has experienced it, we’ve experienced it ourselves, read about it or seen something on TV. Movies and TV series commonly portray people with mental illness as dangerous, scary and unpredictable. The most popular (mis)representations are of characters with multiple personalities, personality disorders, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.




Read more:
The emotion centre is the oldest part of the human brain: why is mood so important?


While the media is an important source of information about mental illness, it can misinform the public if reported inaccurately, promoting stigma and perpetuating myths. And research shows negative images of mental illness in the media (fictional and non-fictional) results in negative and inaccurate beliefs about mental illness.

Dissociative identity disorder

“Multiple personality disorder” or “split personality disorder” are colloquial terms for dissociative identity disorder. Despite being colloquially named a personality disorder, it’s actually a dissociative disorder.

A personality disorder is a long-term way of thinking, feeling and behaving that deviates from the expectations of culture. Whereas in dissociative identity disorder, at least two alternate personalities (alters) routinely take control of the individual’s behaviour. The individual is usually unable to remember what happened when an alter takes over: there are noticeble gaps in their memory, which can be extremely distressing.




Read more:
Dissociative identity disorder exists and is the result of childhood trauma


The popular TV series “The United States of Tara” actually does a pretty good job of portraying dissociative identity disorder. The main character has a series of alters and experiences recurrent gaps in her memory.

While it used to be considered rare, dissociative identity disorder is estimated to affect 1% of the general population, and is typically related to early trauma (such as childhood abuse). People commonly confuse dissociative identity disorder with schizophrenia. Unlike schizophrenia, the individual is not imagining external voices or experiencing visual hallucinations: one personality literally “checks out” and another appears in their place.

Borderline personality disorder

Borderline personality disorder is often misconstrued. People with this condition are often portrayed as manipulative, destructive and violent. In reality, these behaviours are driven by emotional pain: the person has never learned to ask effectively for what they need or want.

It is also often assumed “borderline” means the person almost has a personality disorder. The term “borderline” here creates some confusion. First introduced in the United States in 1938, the term was used by psychiatrists to describe patients who were thought to be on the “border” between diagnoses (mostly psychosis and neurosis). The term “borderline” has stuck in the diagnosis, but there is now a much better understanding of the causes, symptoms and treatment.




Read more:
Borderline personality disorder is a hurtful label for real suffering – time we changed it


Those with borderline personality disorder have difficulties regulating their emotions. This contributes to angry outbursts, anxiety and depression, and relationships fraught with difficulties. It’s also commonly associated with trauma (such as childhood abuse or neglect).

Many actions of a person with borderline personality disorder (such as self-harm and overdose) are done out of desperation in an attempt to manage difficult and intense emotions.




Read more:
Explainer: what is borderline personality disorder?


Bipolar disorder

While borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder can look similar (mood problems, impulsive behaviour and suicidal thinking), there are several key differences.

Bipolar disorder is characterised by extreme mood swings – from severe lows (depression) to periods of high activity, energy and euphoria. The different mood states can seem like a personality change, but a return to the “usual self” occurs once mood stabilises.

While depression is part of borderline personality disorder and bipolar disorder, those with bipolar disorder experience significant “up” mood swings. This is known as mania in bipolar I disorder and hypomania (less intense mania) in bipolar II disorder.




Read more:
Explainer: what is bipolar disorder?


Bipolar mood episodes last longer (four days or longer for “ups” and two weeks or longer for “downs”), with periods of wellness in between, and are less likely to be triggered by external events. And bipolar disorder is more likely to run in families, disrupt sleep patterns, and psychotic symptoms (delusions, hallucinations) can occur during mood episodes.

We all have ups and downs, but bipolar disorder is much more than that with extreme, recurrent mood episodes that are not only distressing, but have a significant long-term impact on key areas of a persons’s life. Positively, with the right treatment, good quality of life is entirely possible despite ongoing symptoms.

Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia, meaning “split mind” in Greek, is often confused with dissociative identity disorder. However, the “split” refers not to multiple personalities, but to a “split” from reality. People with schizophrenia may find it difficult to discern whether their perceptions, thoughts, and emotions are based in reality or not.

Hearing voices (auditory hallucinations) is a common symptom, along with seeing, smelling, feeling, or tasting things others can’t. Unusual beliefs (delusions), including some that cannot possibly be true (such as a belief that one has special powers) are also common. So too is disordered thinking, where the person jumps from one topic to another at random, or makes strange associations to things that don’t make sense. They may also exhibit bizarre behaviour including socially inappropriate outbursts or wearing odd clothing that is inappropriate to the circumstances.

Other symptoms of schizophrenia look a lot like depression, such as an inability to experience pleasure, social withdrawal and low motivation. Depressive symptoms are also present in schizophrenia, but are slightly different in that emotion is diminished altogether, rather than a depressed mood per se.




Read more:
Either mad and bad or Jekyll and Hyde: media portrayals of schizophrenia


Mental health conditions don’t come in neat packages

Unlike physical conditions, we don’t have a biological test that can magically tell us what mental condition we’re dealing with. Mental health practitioners are carefully trained to observe symptom patterns: the right diagnosis guides the appropriate treatment.

For example, first-line treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder often focuses on medication. While dissociative identity disorder and borderline personality disorders are treated primarily with psychological therapy.

The ConversationMental health conditions are serious – whether disorders of personality, mood or somewhere in between. Improved understanding and balanced representation of these conditions is needed to shift stigmas and misconceptions in the community.

Kathryn Fletcher, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology and Kristi-Ann Villagonzalo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

To value companies like Amazon and Facebook, we need to look beyond dollars and assets


John Dumay, Macquarie University; Maurizio Massaro, Università degli Studi di Udine, and Muhammad Nadeem

Investors and business people usually value companies based on the balance of assets and debts at the end of a financial year. But our research found they should be valuing their employees’ ability to innovate while using their existing physical assets.

This is what actually creates value for our economy. For example manufacturing, an example of using assets to create value, is on the decline in Australia. Contrast this to services, using the skills of employees, which are increasing.

We came up with a modified way to predict the value of companies, removing the emphasis on assets and instead using measures of spending on research and development and copyrights.

We tested this revised model with accounting data from companies in countries like China, Malaysia, Russia, South Africa and Turkey. We also tested it with companies in more developed countries like Australia, Austria, Netherlands, Singapore and Sweden.

Research and development was positively associated with return on assets in Australia, Austria, the Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden, China, South Africa and Turkey, according to the model. This means that companies in these developed and emerging economies use their resources more efficiently because of their investments in research and development and copyrights.

For some of the biggest technology companies like Amazon and Facebook, the unique combination of their people, their invented systems and processes, and their physical presence creates value for the company and their investors.

If we can improve how we predict potential economic value, we can help companies and our economy to grow and become more efficient.

Traditional accounting methods

Today, the traditional accounting system has lost its relevance, because many of the resources companies use to do business cannot be owned and become an asset.

Traditionally companies calculate how much they own (assets) and subtract how much they owe (liabilities). The remaining amount, or book value, is what the company is worth.

But people are a key resource in any company, yet companies do not own people. The wages paid to them are an expense, but their value cannot be recorded in the company’s accounts.




Read more:
Why accountants of the future will need to speak blockchain and cryptocurrency if they want your money


Similarly, accounting rules state that most research and development is expensed when it occurs, meaning it is counted as a cost immediately. The problem is that investments in people and research and development may not pay off until the future.

What this means for long-term investments

Amazon, for example, is spending billions of dollars on research and development. This would involve spending money on intangible resources such as copyrights, market research, branding and designing systems and processes. It will also invest in marketing to potential customers, training staff and hiring managers.

According to current accounting rules, most of these costs are treated as expenses now. It is only physical assets such as buildings, computers, furniture and equipment that are counted as a cost over time.




Read more:
Companies may be misleading investors by not openly assessing the true value of assets


However, Amazon’s investment in its new distribution network is likely to reap significant returns in the future. The fact that accounting reports analyse the past year, six months or quarter, shows how accounting is too focused on the short term. In the long term, Amazon is actually worth about 25 times more than accounting suggests.

Because investors are interested in the future returns from their investments, not what was spent in the past, the stock market values most modern companies at several times their book value. This makes modern accounting even less relevant in explaining economic value.

A new approach

Our research found that to understand how economic value is created, you need to look at what businesses are spending on long term resources such as research and development and copyright and treat it as an investment, rather than a cost.

Even if a company is not making a profit because it is investing in research and development in the short term, this does not mean it is not capable of making money in the long term.

Many companies like Amazon never made a profit in their early years as they burned cash to create their foothold in the market. But their investors were convinced these companies would create economic value by way of profits and increased share prices in the future.

The ConversationIf we look beyond the book value of companies, we can truly understand how they create economic value.

John Dumay, Associate Professor – Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance, Macquarie University; Maurizio Massaro, Assistant Professor, Università degli Studi di Udine, and Muhammad Nadeem, Lecturer

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Despite a reduction in executions, progress towards the abolition of the death penalty is slow



File 20180413 105522 c5joqk.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
At the moment, at least 21,919 people are known to be facing death sentences around the world.
Shutterstock

Amy Maguire, University of Newcastle

Amnesty International has released its latest figures on the use of capital punishment globally. In 2017, at least 993 executions were carried out in 23 countries. At least 2,591 death sentences were issued across 53 countries.

At the moment, at least 21,919 people are known to be facing death sentences around the world.

In some ways, bizarrely, these figures are a source of hope. Fewer executions were carried out and fewer death sentences passed in 2017 than in 2016. The year saw a reduction in the number of executions in cases of drug crime.

According to Amnesty, these developments:

…confirmed that the world has passed a tipping point and that the abolition of the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is within reach.

Why should the world move towards death penalty abolition?

From a human rights perspective, capital punishment is indefensible. It violates the right to life. It constitutes a cruel and inhuman punishment.

Capital punishment can also be regarded as torture, both in terms of the methods used and the years that many prisoners spend waiting on death row. Torture is prohibited under international law.




Read more:
Australia’s Human Rights Council election comes with a challenge to improve its domestic record


There is no remedy for execution if a person is later exonerated. Innocent people have been executed in the past and efforts continue to free wrongly convicted people from death row.

On a more pragmatic level, capital punishment lacks deterrent value. It is also a costly punishment to impose, at least in justice systems that seek to meet the requirements of a fair trial and the right to appeal.

As Amnesty reports, the countries that imposed capital punishment in 2017 represent a shrinking minority – 23 of 193 UN member states. Yet Amnesty’s report reveals some worrying truths, and demonstrates how far the world still has to go before the death penalty is abolished.

Gaps in the data

Some countries, most notably China, treat death penalty data as a state secret. For this reason, Amnesty International has not published estimated figures for the death penalty in China since 2009.

Yet it is reported that China executes more people annually than all the other retentionist countries worldwide. Amnesty International is confident that thousands of executions are carried out in China each year.

The Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide aims to provide comprehensive data on the global application of capital punishment, including for countries like China that do not release figures on executions.

Although the Cornell Centre also refrains from estimating figures for China, it concurs that China executes thousands of people each year, and issues thousands more death sentences. Unlike those retentionist countries that permit many levels of post-sentencing appeal, in China people are typically executed immediately after sentencing, or within two years.

Inconsistencies in application of capital punishment

Almost all executions carried out in 2017 were imposed in just five countries: China (estimated thousands), Iran (507+), Saudi Arabia (146), Iraq (125+) and Pakistan (60+). In each of these countries, there are peculiar aspects of the practice that highlight the challenges of promoting abolition where the death penalty is entrenched.

Amnesty reports that executions were carried out in China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in cases where confessions were extracted through torture.

In China, while it is not common practice, some death sentences continue to be delivered in public. In Iran, public executions were carried out in at least 31 cases.

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia impose mandatory death sentences for some crimes, execute juveniles, and fail to meet minimum fair trial standards.

Several retentionist states impose the death penalty in cases that do not meet the “most serious crimes” threshold under international law. For example, some “capital” crimes in China, including bribery and embezzlement, would not attract the death penalty in other retentionist states.

In Iran and Pakistan, blasphemy and insult to the prophet of Islam are punishable by death. In Saudi Arabia, adultery can attract a death sentence. Iraqi law permits capital punishment for kidnapping.

Amnesty also raises concerns regarding aspects of the practice in countries such as the United States and Japan, both of which continue to execute people with mental illness and intellectual disability.

Drug crime and capital punishment

Of ongoing concern is the use of the death penalty in drug cases. Fifteen countries implemented or imposed capital punishment for drug crimes in 2017. Iran executed more than 200 people convicted of drug offences.

Australia took a strong public stand against the death penalty for drug offences when it sought clemency for “Bali Nine” members Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. Yet the pair were executed in April 2015, and Indonesia continued with drug-related executions in 2016.

Although fewer executions were imposed for drug crimes in 2017, extrajudicial killings have been commonplace in the Philippines’ “War on Drugs”. Under President Duterte’s inhumane anti-drug strategy, more than 12,000 Filipinos have been killed to date.

Harm Reduction International raises the concern that Duterte’s regime could be normalising the killing of people for drugs. Such a development could encourage the retention of the death penalty in drug cases in the Asia-Pacific region.

Australia’s advocacy for death penalty abolition

In the aftermath of Chan and Sukumaran’s executions, the Australian government was galvanised to review its advocacy for the abolition of capital punishment.

The subsequent parliamentary inquiry delivered 13 recommendations to enhance Australia’s advocacy, several of which I have discussed previously.

The government delivered its response to these recommendations in March 2017 (10 months after the inquiry report was published). Several recommendations were accepted or accepted “in principle”, with the government noting new or pre-existing efforts to undertake actions recommended by the committee.




Read more:
As Indonesia conducts more executions, Australia’s anti-death-penalty advocacy is still lacking


However, the government did not accept the recommendation to amend Australian Federal Police (AFP) guidelines in ways designed to prevent future Bali Nine-type situations. It explicitly rejected the recommendation that the AFP refuse to share information with foreign law enforcement partners in relation to drug crimes, in the absence of guarantees that capital punishment would not be sought or imposed.

Australia has since been elected to the UN Human Rights Council for a three-year term. One of its voluntary pledges to the council was to continue strong advocacy for global abolition of capital punishment.

The ConversationIn order to meet this pledge, Australia could helpfully re-engage with the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry. Australia can, and should, do more to contribute to the ongoing effort to achieve global abolition of capital punishment.

Amy Maguire, Senior Lecturer in International Law and Human Rights, University of Newcastle

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Ukraine: Persecution News Update


The links below are to articles reporting on persecution news from Eastern Ukraine.

For more visit:
https://christiannews.net/2018/04/18/eastern-ukraines-evangelical-churches-face-closure-threat/
https://www.mnnonline.org/news/eastern-ukraines-evangelical-churches-face-closure-threat/